Yes science also do a lot of mistakes, but what anoys me is that some people who work with science acts as if science had a reputation of 100% hits. Like medical science, which have a very high score os mistakes, and for some things change opinion very often and repeated, and even so doctors talks like if they were oracle of true.

Those people who make lots of mistakes & don't learn from their mistakes, don't know too much.... kinda like AGW deniers.

You are using MODELS to predict the future. No matter what Aerohead links to in support of AGW, that is all it is. I can be wrong. It can be right. It most likely is somewhere in between. My argument is that the models assume correlation is causation. You may cripple our modern economies with a hard headed approach to force everyone to use solar and wind. You may find that you can stop the output of CO2 - and still end up with a hotter world because something was not seen.

My father was a Microbiologist and Vectors were his thing. Just because a bunch of people ate at the local pizza joint doesn't mean the pizza joint is the cause. There may be various underlying causes of the illness.

AGW is even more complex by many orders of magnitude.

I agree that the world is warming. I even admit it might be caused by human activity. I am adamant that we should not collapse our economies to blindly halt CO2 emissions without looking at other trigger points that, though small, could in aggregate, surpass CO2's effects and we find that our efforts were all in vain.

By the way. The pizza joint was clean. All the patrons who got sick were part of a softball league who drank Gatorade prepared with tap water. That tap water came from a well. The well had Giardia . The well was polluted by a poorly sited leach field.

You may have slammed the Pizza joint with violations and fines. And it would have done nothing.

We may be well doing this on a world wide scale.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RustyLugNut For This Useful Post:

The problem I have is that extreme measures will merely delay the date at which the globe reaches an arbitrary warmer number. How much should we sacrifice to have weather that was more like it was 9 months ago? Warming is inevitable, it's just the rate at which things warm is variable.

I question the logic of using resources to delay warming rather than prepare for it. Would you rather spend money to delay a flood, or use that money to have a liferaft for when it inevitably comes?

Since fossil fuels are practically a finite resource, we should develop strategies to move away from them. In that way, we're both delaying the flood and building a liferaft.

I am adamant that we should not collapse our economies to blindly halt CO2 emissions without looking at other trigger points.....

Such is a stalwart(with an emphasis on "stall"), long-enduring, "sigh-ants" re-pubic-lick-un & AGW denier claim (more study is needed), advanced by 90% of the re-pubic-lick-un & AGW denier population, to oppose 97% of the AGW scientific population.

Science might be able to somewhat accurately predict what the average temperature will be in the future as well as some sea level rise and other global conditions, but that doesn't predict what the price of tea in China will be.

In other words, there's not evidence about how the changes will affect health and prosperity for humanity, or at least the only acceptable discourse is centered around things like the loss of polar bear habitat or the increase in habitable mosquito environments.

Ever notice how it's only cute things that lose their environment, and only nasty things whose environment improves?

If research funding depends on finding disaster, should we be surprised if it's found? We don't actually have unbiased research which is looking to paint a truthful picture of what climate change will mean to humanity in the future. It's all politically motivated.

I accept that the climate is changing; I don't accept that it necessarily means doom. I'm more concerned about nuclear warfare, killer drones, and weaponized genetic engineering. Our ingenuity is our own worst enemy, not our ignorance.

Such is a stalwart(with an emphasis on "stall"), long-enduring, "sigh-ants" re-pubic-lick-un & AGW denier claim (more study is needed), advanced by 90% of the re-pubic-lick-un & AGW denier population, to oppose 97% of the AGW scientific population.

Terse>is greater than>Verbose.

If we're going to [gamble on] bankrupt[ing] the economy, why not prepare for runaway greenhouse and ice age at the same time. That way we be proof against these minor threats. And we can safely send nuclear reactors into space.

__________________.

If no one comes back from the future to stop you from doing it then how bad of a decision can it really be?